There is not a racial take in weber ' s conceptualization. Weber is looking at the sociohistorical evolution of how religious (cultural) ideas gave rise to capitalism in the west and not elsewhere.
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
President
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
www.mocombeian.com
www.readingroomcurriculum.com
www.paulcmocombe.info
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:02/10/2015 7:14 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty </div><div>
</div>On 10 February 2015 at 02:01, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
wrote:
> Huw,
>
> If max weber is correct, in terms of the protestant ethic giving rise to
> the spirit of capitalism and the ever-increasing rationalization of western
> society, "it make sense to describe a
> dogmatic society, or a[n] institution run by administrators, as a
> [socioreligious] culture!"
>
>
Do you mean the protestant work ethic, Paul? Perhaps you (or Weber) are
conflating protestant with WASP?
Huw
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> www.paulcmocombe.info
>
> Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
> www.routledge.com/9780415714372
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> Date: 02/09/2015 8:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Thoughts on culture & liberty
>
> I'm not sure if this is related to Paul's inquiry.
>
> I have been considering some of the fundamentals and prerequisites for
> developmental education and related issues. In his articles, Vladimir
> Zinchenko refers to culture as that which fosters (and stimulates)
> psychological development. It seems to me that Zinchenko includes "liberal
> relations" within this remit, e.g. to delegate responsibility and authority
> in equal measure, relations of trust, zpd dynamics, an open regard for
> possibilities and encouragement for independent thinking -- the sort of
> interpersonal regard that may be summed up as a regard for liberty.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but are these relations not the essence of culture
> as opposed to, say, the man made parts of the environment or the collective
> memories of a society etc? For example, does it make sense to describe a
> dogmatic society, or a institution run by administrators, as a culture?
> Might it not, actually, be more correct to describe it by its relative
> absence of culture?
>
> Huw
>
>